2. In a case where there is no change in the conditions of sentencing compared with the first instance court, and the sentencing of the first instance court does not deviate from the reasonable scope of discretion, it is reasonable to respect it.

(See Supreme Court en banc Decision 2015Do3260 Decided July 23, 2015). In light of the aforementioned legal doctrine, the lower court determined punishment within a reasonable scope by fully taking into account all the circumstances regarding sentencing, including the following: (a) the Defendant’s violation of all the criminal acts while committing the crime; (b) the damaged goods were immediately returned to the victim; (c) the Defendant had a criminal record identical to the Defendant; and (d) the Defendant committed the instant case at least 30,000 days after the Defendant was discharged from the office due to fraud; and (b) there is no other circumstance that may be newly considered in the trial; (c) taking into account the motive, means, and consequence of the crime; and (d) the circumstances surrounding the sentencing of the lower court in the course of the sentencing trial, including the following circumstances, it cannot be deemed that the sentencing of the lower court is too large to exceed the reasonable scope of discretion.

3. As such, the defendant's appeal is without merit, and it is dismissed in accordance with Article 364 (4) of the Criminal Procedure Act. It is so decided as per Disposition.